The International Court of Justice pronounced on the “Botnia Case”

On April 20, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) rendered its final decision in the case concerning the dispute maintained since 2006 between Argentina and Uruguay in relation to the construction of the pulp mills on the left bank of the Uruguay river. This decision is final and binding for the parties (cfr. section 60 Statute of the ICJ), and therefore closes the dispute at least in this international jurisdiction.

The claim was filed by Argentina in early May 2006, grounded on Uruguay’s breach of procedural and substantive obligations under the 1975 Statute of the Uruguay River, which provides the joint use of the Uruguay River.

Besides the claim, Argentina requested an interim measure in order to prevent Uruguay from authorizing or beginning the construction of the pulp mill (Botnia Group “Orion” mill).

On November 29, 2006 Uruguay also requested provisional measures in order to (i) put an end the blockades of the international bridge connecting both coasts by Argentine protesters, (ii) have Argentina abstain from taking any measure that might aggravate, extend or block the settlement of this dispute, and (iii) have Argentina abstain from taking any other measure that might prejudice the rights of Uruguay in the dispute. Both measures were rejected by the ICJ on July 13, 2006 and January 23, 2007, respectively.

Regarding the breach of procedural obligations, Argentina alleged that Uruguay’s approval of the construction of the Orion mill implied a violation to the duty of informing the Administrative Commission of the River Uruguay (CARU) of “any works of significance to affect navigation, the regime of the river or the quality of its waters” (Articles 7 to 12 of the Statute of the River Uruguay).

On this matter, the ICJ decided -by 13 votes to 1- that Uruguay had breached its procedural obligations under the Statute of the Uruguay River, and that this declaration by the ICJ constitutes “appropriate satisfaction”. By this decision and using this particular terminology, the ICJ admitted Argentina’s claim of breach of procedural obligations under the Statute, without recognizing that Argentina have any right to compensation. This decision also implies the rejection of Argentina’s intention to relocate the Orion mill.

From the perspective of substantive obligations, Argentina claimed that Uruguay had breached the substantive rules contained in Articles 35, 36 and 41 of the Statute, which provide for the conservation, utilization and exploitation of the natural resources and the control of pollution of the river.

On this second matter, the ICJ found by 11 votes to 3 that no breach from Uruguay was verified concerning the environmental issues regulated by the Statute.

On the other hand, the ICJ unanimously rejected all other submissions made by the parties, since it was found that they exceeded the framework set by the Statute, which is in fact the instrument that limits the ICJ jurisdiction ratione materiae.

The ICJ recognized both parties’ obligations to enable the CARU to exercise the powers conferred by the Statute, including the obligation to monitor and control the quality of the river’s waters and the assessment of the impact that the Orion mill might produce on the aquatic environment.

The ICJ also ruled that Uruguay has the obligation to continue monitoring the Orion mill according to Article 41 of the Statute and to guarantee the fulfillment by Botnia of local environmental regulations and the standards set by the CARU.